SHARDUL SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the petitioner, who was a Sub-Inspector of Police, seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing an order dated the 30th November 1963 of the Inspector general of Police dismissing him from service. The order of the Inspector General of Police was upheld in appeal by the Government, and it writ is sought for quashing that order also.

(2.) THE petitioner's dismissal was as a sequel to a departmental enquiry held against him on the charges that on 24th June 1962 when the constables detailed at Korandha border for checking smuggling of rice into Bihar State intercepted and seized twenty-two pony-loads of rice which was being taken across the border, the petitioner forced the constables to release the rice under the threat of dire and serious consequences; that he suppressed information about this crime of smuggling; and that he also, under threats of harassment and vengeance, forced the constables to write out false duly certificates and thus abused his position. The departmental enquiry was initiated and held by the Superintendent of Police. Surguja; the charges were also framed by him. After the conclusion of the enquiry, the Superintendent of Police sent his report finding the petitioner guilty of the charges to the Deputy Inspector General of Police. Raipur, with the comments of the District Magistrate on his report. The Deputy Inspector General of Police in his turn submitted the report of the Superintendent of Police, with his own comments thereon, to the Inspector General of Police. On 9th September 1963 the inspector General of Police issued a notice to the applicant stating that on a perusal of the record of the departmental enquiry he had provisionally reached the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner had been proved, and asking him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner sent his reply to the show-cause notice denying the charges. The explanation offered by the petitioner did not convince the Inspector General of Police, who thereupon passed the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service.

(3.) THE applicant contends that his dismissal from service is invalid for three reasons, namely, first, as he was appointed as Sub-Inspector by the Government, his dismissal from service by the Inspector General of Police, an authority subordinate to the Government, was contrary to Article 311 (1) of the Constitution; secondly, he was not given an opportunity of cross-examining some of the witnesses who gave evidence in support of the charges framed against him and of producing some witnesses on his behalf; and, thirdly, the departmental enquiry held by the Superintendent of Police on charges framed by himself was a nullity as the Superintendent of Police not being the disciplinary authority in regard to him, he had no power to initiate any departmental enquiry against him; and that consequently the notice to show cause given by the Inspector General of Police and the ultimate order passed by him dismissing him (the applicant) from service were invalid.